BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
dickey moe said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
** Tarantino's Hateful Eight - Official thread ** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Wingnut
- Start date
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
I will say that the first five minutes are amazing.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Meatwad Reloaded
Footballguy
Its streaming everywhere.dickey moe said:
Wingnut
Footballguy
Agree with all of this, but I put it a notch above his last 2 films. I could easily see Cristoph Waltz in Roth's role.Also loved the nod to Pulp with the Red Apple tobacco.
And man oh man does QT like to take liberty with the N word - I think it's his favorite word other than the F bomb.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
Footballguy
He said cops were murderers and that he was on the side of the murdered.ETA: I absolutely stand by his first amendment right to say it
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
Footballguy
It's not what I had issue with, it's that he said cops were murderers at a rally and 4 days later a cop was slain. There's a case that inflammatory rhetoric against all police collectively could lead to violence against cops. Cops asked people to boycott his movie. I'm in for that.
Wingnut
Footballguy
Not a lot of fanfare is gonna happen when you've got Star Wars to compete with. Plus, not a lot of info about this movie other than a single trailer until it got leaked the other day.The Django thread did 3 pages before it's release, so it's par for the course for a QT film IMO
Statorama
Footballguy
...and let's face it, I'm probably one of only 3 people respecting the boycott. I have no illusions that this is a major thing, and certainly not advocating others do it. But I get why the cops are ticked and I'm backing their play here.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/25/police-union-calls-for-tarantino-boycott-after-anti-cop-rally/
http://nypost.com/2015/10/25/police-union-calls-for-tarantino-boycott-after-anti-cop-rally/
Statorama
Footballguy
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
He did not say that all cops were murderers. I think that's an important distinction.
And look, a cop getting killed is a tragedy, and killing a cop is deeply immoral. Just as killing an unarmed kid who isn't armed and poses no threat is also immoral.
I've been down on a lot of Tarantino's recent stuff, this one was not bad imo.
Statorama
Footballguy
Cops sure seem to think he referred to them as murderers, enough to call for a boycott. Again, people can do what they want to do, I'm not advocating anyone follow my lead.
This isn't a big deal anyway, as I can pretty easily watch it without contributing financially. Best boycott ever
Jules Winnfield
Footballguy
You mean if a cop commits murder, then he should be called a murderer?JaxBill said:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Going to post the review in the next one up but I wanted to say something now that I have seen the film to folks that ran in here off a torent or whatever to report. Please don't get offended when I say this but with all due respect your review or opinion is skewed a lot. i could see how someone might not like this movie if they saw it on a Samsung Galaxy 6.
So to those that want to steal, more power to you but your opinion of the film should not be counted heavily as you didn't see the film the way the director or anyone associated with the art side of that film wanted you to see it.
So to those that want to steal, more power to you but your opinion of the film should not be counted heavily as you didn't see the film the way the director or anyone associated with the art side of that film wanted you to see it.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Before a lengthy review which I will try and not give away the big spoilers, I simply want to encourage you to go see this movie in all its 70 MM Panavision. If they show it correctly the bottom 1/5 of the screen we will say is sectioned off or blank. I found the whole movie from beginning to end to be completely fascinating. It might not be the best script I have heard muttered on screen but overall this film blows the doors off 98% of the holy hell films that get unleashed on almost a weekly basis knocking off last week’s champ for the prize of film of the week. So before I do the actual review, I would simply encourage you to see the film. If you like QT, you will love this film, if you don’t care for QT that’s fine too, I still think the film stands on its own…I saw a lot of Reservoir Dogs and also a pretty famous Kurt Russell film named The Thing by John Carpenter, folk my age and older will remember it well but a lot of folks might not know as much about it. You will not feel like you got taken for your hard earned bucks leaving the theater if you have any love or appreciation for film IMHO.
Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers if you continue to read but again I will try to not reveal every plot point.
Samuel L. Jackson: Hard to believe it’s the same actor that made Kingsman:Secret Service. When this man is given the right script and direction he shines like very few do. He can play a lot of roles but he relishes playing the *N Word with no apologies and no regards for what anyone thinks. He has played the character so many times in the QT films that he has mastered it. Jules in PF, Ordell in JB, Stephen in Django, and he does it in a lot of other films by other directors. His role in this film is a little different than the others, they always are but he draws upon many of the tools in his acting belt that we have grown to love over the years. He deserves some Oscar buzz and a possible nomination for this role.
Kurt Russell: He is absolutely on all cylinders in this film. That distinct voice is heard in this one just before we see him, thought that was a great intro. I felt a little John Wayne when he was on screen, I don’t want to spoil the movie for anyone but his actions and most of his dialogue is A++. Could he get an Oscar nomination? It’s possible but I just enjoyed it. The shots of him inside the haberdashery with Leigh chained to his wrist holding the rifle and that big fur coat on him, he looked like he was the biggest badass of a big badass bunch. It’s funny because Kurt was always the good wholesome SOB and he makes such a good Western character, he really should try and look for more Westerns because he embodies a lot of what people associate with these films. I thought his acting was superb.
Jennifer Jason Leigh: Give her the Oscar nomination, not sure she will win. I was blown away by what she could do without a lot of movement and I thought of all the actors that she might be having the most fun. I don’t want to reveal all the good stuff but she looks like Satan down the stretch with all the blood on her face(you’ll see it in the program before the film) and those piercing dark eyes, she was scary even when getting the crap kicked out of her. There might be an entire movie you could do just on her character long before she is ushered up to Red Rock.
Walton Goggins: I never watched Shield or Justified which seems to be his long stints on TV. If I knew more about him I might have a stronger opinion. I assume he was an extended audience member in this film. At times he sounded like Tommy Lee Jones’ sidekick deputy in NCFoM. Especially the scene where the deputy discovers the milk in NCFoM, it felt like maybe Gogging did know but was playing dumb, in the end it is all flushed out and we actually learn that most of the time he was speaking the truth, not that it help the character development. I want to say on the surface he was the weakest but that’s not true. He looked the most authentic Western looking guy compared to others like Roth and Madsen who did well but didn’t blend in as well. I think this role will open a lot of doors in films for Goggins and bring him to a wider audience. Guy has talent but their a “hack” side of his acting that you either love or hate IMO.
The rest of the cast is a little harder to discuss. I think Bruce Dern was good but he mostly sat in his chair the whole time. Tim Roth I thought was strong but my wife mentioned she didn’t feel as strong about his acting and choices at times. I thought he did the most he could with what they gave him. The reason he is here is because he also had a major role in Reservoir Dogs and there was definitely some of that in this. Michael Madsen did what he could with the limited lines, he is a supporting actor here and not a lot more. Still, Roth and Madsen help like caretakers in the film but the flashback scene involving them was the weakest link of the film.
And that would be my only slight criticism. The first half up to the intermission was not only some of the best QT I have ever seen but it was the best stuff I saw on film all year. I’m not going to lie and say the post intermission is equally as strong, it’s still pretty darn good but it does start to splinter just a bit. Usually I grade a film with a couple caveats. One is, would I want my memory banks erased and see the film again for the first time? I would say absolutely for this one.
The beginning of the film where some critics thought it was slow, I never felt that even slightly. In fact I wanted to go back and spend more time in some of the early parts of the film. The 70 MM which is actually 65 but it captured that snowy mountain about as well as I have ever seen it done. I also thought the color contrast where you have a black actor like Jackson in a dark room with low light, you could see everything. Vs Star Wars a week ago where I felt like I couldn’t always see especially in scenes that were shot dark. The two films are not remotely comparable but I’m just trying to show what I am measuring this against for contrast. The vividness and richness of the film were something to see. You could see what QT was doing and I thought he succeeded across the board.
Go see the movie in 70MM if you can before this goes wide on NYE. Not sure how long that format will stay out there but considering they have not shown much on it in it 50 years you might want to try and get out there.
Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers if you continue to read but again I will try to not reveal every plot point.
Samuel L. Jackson: Hard to believe it’s the same actor that made Kingsman:Secret Service. When this man is given the right script and direction he shines like very few do. He can play a lot of roles but he relishes playing the *N Word with no apologies and no regards for what anyone thinks. He has played the character so many times in the QT films that he has mastered it. Jules in PF, Ordell in JB, Stephen in Django, and he does it in a lot of other films by other directors. His role in this film is a little different than the others, they always are but he draws upon many of the tools in his acting belt that we have grown to love over the years. He deserves some Oscar buzz and a possible nomination for this role.
Kurt Russell: He is absolutely on all cylinders in this film. That distinct voice is heard in this one just before we see him, thought that was a great intro. I felt a little John Wayne when he was on screen, I don’t want to spoil the movie for anyone but his actions and most of his dialogue is A++. Could he get an Oscar nomination? It’s possible but I just enjoyed it. The shots of him inside the haberdashery with Leigh chained to his wrist holding the rifle and that big fur coat on him, he looked like he was the biggest badass of a big badass bunch. It’s funny because Kurt was always the good wholesome SOB and he makes such a good Western character, he really should try and look for more Westerns because he embodies a lot of what people associate with these films. I thought his acting was superb.
Jennifer Jason Leigh: Give her the Oscar nomination, not sure she will win. I was blown away by what she could do without a lot of movement and I thought of all the actors that she might be having the most fun. I don’t want to reveal all the good stuff but she looks like Satan down the stretch with all the blood on her face(you’ll see it in the program before the film) and those piercing dark eyes, she was scary even when getting the crap kicked out of her. There might be an entire movie you could do just on her character long before she is ushered up to Red Rock.
Walton Goggins: I never watched Shield or Justified which seems to be his long stints on TV. If I knew more about him I might have a stronger opinion. I assume he was an extended audience member in this film. At times he sounded like Tommy Lee Jones’ sidekick deputy in NCFoM. Especially the scene where the deputy discovers the milk in NCFoM, it felt like maybe Gogging did know but was playing dumb, in the end it is all flushed out and we actually learn that most of the time he was speaking the truth, not that it help the character development. I want to say on the surface he was the weakest but that’s not true. He looked the most authentic Western looking guy compared to others like Roth and Madsen who did well but didn’t blend in as well. I think this role will open a lot of doors in films for Goggins and bring him to a wider audience. Guy has talent but their a “hack” side of his acting that you either love or hate IMO.
The rest of the cast is a little harder to discuss. I think Bruce Dern was good but he mostly sat in his chair the whole time. Tim Roth I thought was strong but my wife mentioned she didn’t feel as strong about his acting and choices at times. I thought he did the most he could with what they gave him. The reason he is here is because he also had a major role in Reservoir Dogs and there was definitely some of that in this. Michael Madsen did what he could with the limited lines, he is a supporting actor here and not a lot more. Still, Roth and Madsen help like caretakers in the film but the flashback scene involving them was the weakest link of the film.
And that would be my only slight criticism. The first half up to the intermission was not only some of the best QT I have ever seen but it was the best stuff I saw on film all year. I’m not going to lie and say the post intermission is equally as strong, it’s still pretty darn good but it does start to splinter just a bit. Usually I grade a film with a couple caveats. One is, would I want my memory banks erased and see the film again for the first time? I would say absolutely for this one.
The beginning of the film where some critics thought it was slow, I never felt that even slightly. In fact I wanted to go back and spend more time in some of the early parts of the film. The 70 MM which is actually 65 but it captured that snowy mountain about as well as I have ever seen it done. I also thought the color contrast where you have a black actor like Jackson in a dark room with low light, you could see everything. Vs Star Wars a week ago where I felt like I couldn’t always see especially in scenes that were shot dark. The two films are not remotely comparable but I’m just trying to show what I am measuring this against for contrast. The vividness and richness of the film were something to see. You could see what QT was doing and I thought he succeeded across the board.
Go see the movie in 70MM if you can before this goes wide on NYE. Not sure how long that format will stay out there but considering they have not shown much on it in it 50 years you might want to try and get out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I could watch an entire movie about Minnie, the 6 Horse Woman, and the candy girl.
Also wanted to mention the violence in the film. I found it to be cartoonish and feel like that is what QT is doing these days. It's a little over the top but it makes it funny IMO. And I really thought Django was far more of a blood fest towards the end than anything in the Hateful Eight. If gun shots make you squeamish like the man next to me than maybe it's violent. But I thought compared to most films out there this wasn't all that much blood.
Also wanted to mention the violence in the film. I found it to be cartoonish and feel like that is what QT is doing these days. It's a little over the top but it makes it funny IMO. And I really thought Django was far more of a blood fest towards the end than anything in the Hateful Eight. If gun shots make you squeamish like the man next to me than maybe it's violent. But I thought compared to most films out there this wasn't all that much blood.
Wingnut
Footballguy
I thought Goggins was as good as anyone in this film. Him, Jackson, Russell and Leigh were all in top form.
Unfortunately I had to cancel my xmas day Roadshow viewing, but I'm gonna see it in a theater when it opens next week...watching on my 55 inch TV it looked long and skinny, so I'm wondering if the aspect ratio was close to true for 70mm...while watching it I was pretty sure it was.
So MOP where do you rank it as a QT movie?
Unfortunately I had to cancel my xmas day Roadshow viewing, but I'm gonna see it in a theater when it opens next week...watching on my 55 inch TV it looked long and skinny, so I'm wondering if the aspect ratio was close to true for 70mm...while watching it I was pretty sure it was.
So MOP where do you rank it as a QT movie?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Good question. I can tell you that many other QT lovers that either saw the movie with me or saw it in another city, none of them felt this was his best work. That's not to say they didn't love it but the bar has been set so high in a few of these, tough to reach.
I love them all Wing, I can honestly say I have seen all 8 of his films on the big screen when they were released in theaters. I have a soft spot for Kill Bill I and II because my wife loves that film above them all and she is a huge QT fan. I like Jackie Brown and I know that film is usually on the bottom of most QT lists.
I didn't love Django as much as everyone else, still liked it a lot lot lot but maybe not quite as much as everyone. And that would be about right as so many of QTs films are not box office winners, look them all up as the numbers might surprise you. Kill Bill did about $65-$70M both films each which when you hear folks they all act like they saw it...maybe on DVD but not on the big screen. All of QTs films should be viewed first time on a big screen. I actually don't enjoy them nearly as much on Netflix.
Better than Django for me all day, Inglorious Basterds won some awards and is the top of the heap for many but I enjoyed this more. it's in my top5 right now. I would put it ahead of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Jackie Brown, and Django for me. it has a much bigger budget than anything Dogs could have gotten so technically its a better films all the way around. Pulp Fiction? That film is almost 22 years old, wonderful piece of pop culture, not sure what else I can say there.
Hateful Eight is probably top3 for me right now. I was blown away by what I saw. The screen was enormous, theater could hold almost 500 people and it was cut into 4 sections, we had amazing seats.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
The opening scenes were amazing. But the whole narrative that it's some sort of visual feast for the eyes is a little overblown, 95% of the movie takes place indoors.
I'm not for watching anything on a laptop (or worse), I watched it on my big-screen.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
FWIW, of the Tarantino movies I've seen since Jackie Brown, I haven't liked any of them. Kill Bill, garbage. Django, garbage. Inglorious Basterds suuuuuuuucked.
This was way better than any of those. Never would've paid to see it though.
This was way better than any of those. Never would've paid to see it though.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
It's possible they stayed with me too long. I feel like a lot of that movie or at least Ch.1 most of it is outside. 95%? You're not off that much of it takes place indoors but there still is some serious lush snowy landscapes. I haven't seen this kind of sweeping shots for however long they are on screen since say Unforgiven. That film blew me away as it did most and not all of it is sweeping lush scenery but it won best picture and folks went on and on with some of the scenes.The opening scenes were amazing. But the whole narrative that it's some sort of visual feast for the eyes is a little overblown, 95% of the movie takes place indoors.
I'm not for watching anything on a laptop (or worse), I watched it on my big-screen.
That first half before the intermission comes on(you miss that on a home TV, did you get the program?) was some of the best film I have ever seen. The 2nd half or Chapters 4 and 5 couldn't quite live up to that first 90-100 minutes of the film. But it was still great and I expect this to be one of the 10 films for Best Picture.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Trust me, I get what you are saying. I bet it looks amazing in 70mm, but isn't it in that format on less than 100 screens in the country too? I know I would have a 2+ hour drive to get somewhere to view it like he wants me to.
I haven't seen it yet, but if people think the plot and dialogue aren't there, I am not sure how much dressing it up in 70mm is going to skew them to a positive review. See: most people's reaction to The Master.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Buddy if you like QT I would drive the 2 hours. I thought the whole experience was a throwback. The theater we saw it in was sort of retro looking inside to begin even though its a newer movieplex. It had crazy looking tile even in the bathrooms, everything has an Italian marble look. It also was shown on their biggest screen and the audience was big because it isn't playing but on 100 screens right now. They have been retrofitted I guess?
I don't want to hype the film, I actually was thinking I might not like this one as some reviews I read were folks saying "The first QT film I was a little disappointed" so I thought this might not be as good as I hoped. It actually was better, a lot better than I thought it would even be. The first half is some of the best I have ever seen on a movie screen so basically anything from about 1977 on thru to present. I was floored watching it in this format, the color contrast...SLJ is BLACK and even in the darkest of shots inside I could see every inch of him and everyone else.
The 2nd half of the film is a little different. I think the overture and intermission added to the experience. We even had a nice program with lots of color stills of the film which was a nice touch. Classy experience all the way around, I felt like a kid who was getting to experience film for the first time. I never saw a film in that format before and since QT is a film buff himself, I wanted to peer inside the director's mind a little and I felt like I did with this.
But I'm sure you will enjoy it on the regular old digital screens. And that is what I find funny, the new technology and they can't really put a film like this together, it's embarrassing for Hollywood and kind of an indictment on society and what people will put up with. "Give us more blue screens and green screens filled with computer generated worlds and no substance" That must be what folks are telling the movie studios.
2 hours is a haul, is there something else to do where you could make it part of the day but not the entire reason for thee trip?
Wingnut
Footballguy
Yeah, for me the first 2 hours FLEW by, I was so engrossed in the look, feel, dialogue, characters, interaction, etc, I didnt even realize 2 hours had gone by with not a lot of action. As far as the main actors, I dont think Roth or Madsen were needed in this movie at all. Roth was good in his limited role, IMO, but Madsen was an afterthought and could have been played by anyone. Senior Bob (Bichir) was a more interesting and important character, and he should have got billing over Madsen.
I also agree about the over the top violence/blood...for some reason, he abandoned the realistic violence he used in Dogs, Pulp, and Jackie when he made Kill Bill and never went back to it. I think it kind of worked in Kill Bill, but in this movie I think it would have been much better if he went back the way he did it early in his career. That said, I think H8 is one of his best.
I rank em:
Pulp
Kill Bill (I liked KBI better than KBII but I rank it as a whole here)
Hateful Eight
Res Dogs
Basterds, Django, Jackie Brown (like them all equally)
Death Proof
Last edited by a moderator:
Wingnut
Footballguy
Tarantino fans, this is pretty cool.
Watch A 3 minute Supercut Of All Of Quentin Tarantino’s Visual References To Film History
Video here: https://vimeo.com/148955244
http://www.omgfacts.com/hollywood/25345/Watch-A-Supercut-Of-All-Of-Quentin-Tarantino-s-Visual-References-To-Film-History?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Facebook-231435026494&utm_content=FBPageList
Quentin Tarantino has been a living legend ever since his first film Reservoir Dogs premiered at Sundance Film Festival back in 1992 and became an instant classic. He's revered for his non-linear storytelling style of cinema in which he weaves in and out of satire and violent subject matter often (read: always) displayed visually and graphically. Tarantino self-proclaims as a "cinephile," meaning he's obsessed with cinema. Because of that fact, he often pays homage to film in his films.
Audiences and critics often say that Tarantino is simply lazy and ripping-off other filmmakers, but his recreations are more than just that. As a self-proclaimed "cinephile" he is literally showing his affection for his life's passion, yet weaving it beautifully into his own craft. These recreations are simply "love letters" to the films he's loved throughout his life. And he's seen them all. Everything from German silent-cinema, to kung-fu movies, to American Westerns and B-movies, Tarantino has seen it and potentially may pay homage to it.
You can watch the entire supercut put together by Jacob T. Sweeney here and realize exactly what you were seeing when watching Tarantino films. Little did you know, you were learning a little something about film history in the process.
Watch A 3 minute Supercut Of All Of Quentin Tarantino’s Visual References To Film History
Video here: https://vimeo.com/148955244
http://www.omgfacts.com/hollywood/25345/Watch-A-Supercut-Of-All-Of-Quentin-Tarantino-s-Visual-References-To-Film-History?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Facebook-231435026494&utm_content=FBPageList
Quentin Tarantino has been a living legend ever since his first film Reservoir Dogs premiered at Sundance Film Festival back in 1992 and became an instant classic. He's revered for his non-linear storytelling style of cinema in which he weaves in and out of satire and violent subject matter often (read: always) displayed visually and graphically. Tarantino self-proclaims as a "cinephile," meaning he's obsessed with cinema. Because of that fact, he often pays homage to film in his films.
Audiences and critics often say that Tarantino is simply lazy and ripping-off other filmmakers, but his recreations are more than just that. As a self-proclaimed "cinephile" he is literally showing his affection for his life's passion, yet weaving it beautifully into his own craft. These recreations are simply "love letters" to the films he's loved throughout his life. And he's seen them all. Everything from German silent-cinema, to kung-fu movies, to American Westerns and B-movies, Tarantino has seen it and potentially may pay homage to it.
You can watch the entire supercut put together by Jacob T. Sweeney here and realize exactly what you were seeing when watching Tarantino films. Little did you know, you were learning a little something about film history in the process.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
1:38 Gone in 60 vs Kill Bill, the shot with the sunglasses across the dashboard. It just doesn't have the same impact on a TV as it did on the big screen where those shades fill up most of the screen, its an amazing shot, didn't realize they improved an another movie.
Even if QT does take form other films, he makes them better and bows them up all over the screen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama
Footballguy
it was ok. Basic QT stuff. Long monologues, some that work some that don't. Over the top violence/gore (which I like - Big Kill Bill guy). People that aren't quite what they seem. Tension by the bucketload. About an hour too long. Russell, Leigh and Goggins were all very good, but SLJ seemed forced. It's almost like SLJ doesn't even play characters anymore, he simply does his SLJ thing in different wardrobe. Rest of the cast really could have been played by anyone. I'm not the biggest Roth fan to begin with (going all the way back to Mr. Orange) but he was playing a role that seemed to cry out for Christoph Waltz. The door gag NEVER worked. Not the first time, and definitely not the 10th.
If you like most of QT's stuff you'll like this. If you're on the fence, you probably won't. Not his best, not his worst.
My QT Ranks
Pulp Fiction
Kill Bill (I look at 1 and 2 as one complete movie, as he intended)
Jackie Brown
Inglorious Basterds
Reservoir Dogs
Hateful 8
Django
Deathproof
If you like most of QT's stuff you'll like this. If you're on the fence, you probably won't. Not his best, not his worst.
My QT Ranks
Pulp Fiction
Kill Bill (I look at 1 and 2 as one complete movie, as he intended)
Jackie Brown
Inglorious Basterds
Reservoir Dogs
Hateful 8
Django
Deathproof
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Where did you view the film?
What monologues? I kept waiting for long monologues that would go nowhere like in Death Proof when they are sitting around the table. There are very few monologues and when they do have them like SLJ, I found his little monologues in the stagecoach more as much needed background/story so we had some idea what was going to happen. You might recall SLJ slips about something they had to discussed earlier which gave us the first nod that there was a background here. I just found that fascinating but maybe not for everyone.
The over the top violence...what films do you watch? I see more senseless violence in a lot more films. His violence is a joke, in fact I laughed when we had a brief homage to The Thing. Have you ever seen that movie by John Carpenter? They got the actor who starred in that film to appear in this one, just in case you missed it. There isn't much blood at all in the first 2 hours. The gunshots which is most of the violence is treated like explosions coming out of people, that's done for style. I enjoy it and tend to laugh when people are getting their heads blown off but I like that choice that QT has made in the last 10-15 years in his films.
Which hour would you cut? I'll be looking forward to the 5 hr 21 min director's cut.
How was this compared to any movie you have seen since say the summer? I liked Mad Max an awful lot and I see it winning an awful lot of awards. I believe the Hateful Eight will start getting some Oscar Buzz. I find a lot of reviews to be more personal bias(not you) than actually observing the picture.
I found the quality of the film and the quality of the acting to be top notch. I enjoy the banter between the crusty old outlaws and Western gentlemen quite riveting.
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I appreciate, but don't really like QT anymore. If it was under an hour drive I would go, or if I didn't have the kids I would go. Just can't happen at this stage in life. I am sure it looks great in the format intended though.
Part of my issue is I am still not 100% sure how to take him. More and more he comes off as a doosh to me. Scorsese is every bit of a cinephile that QT is and still has nods in his movies without them seeming like ripoffs of the genres he loves. Other directors use different formats (ie The Master shot in a similar format, Nolan incorporating IMAX, etc.. ) without the seeming "look at me and how much I love the art of cinema" proclamations that QT seems to have.
Long story short, I guess he just bothers me personality wise, and I am betting that is starting to trickle into how I look at his movies. Just wish he would shut his yap a little bit, and put out a whole movie that is as amazing as the few scenes are in Inglorious Basterds. (opening scene, bar scene, restaurant scene). The reason I have some hope for this new one is that is seems to be confined to a couple locations, which is what he excels at.
(HULK)
(Smash)
I haven't seen this yet but I just wanted to say Jackie Brown was god awful. That should always be at the bottom of any Tarantino list.
Heck, he was so high filming/editing it that YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN BOOM MIKE in several scenes in Robert Forester's office. Drove me nuts.
Still looking forward to this one. Tarantino obviously has done some very fine work since JB, so my hopes are up. But Jackie Brown is abysmal.
Heck, he was so high filming/editing it that YOU CAN SEE THE DAMN BOOM MIKE in several scenes in Robert Forester's office. Drove me nuts.
Still looking forward to this one. Tarantino obviously has done some very fine work since JB, so my hopes are up. But Jackie Brown is abysmal.
Quez
Footballguy
Just finished this last night. Excellent film. Most of the movie takes place in a single room, yet it was so compelling. Suspense, comedy, great dialogue. Brilliant.
"Why don't you prove it cabrone"
"Shut the door! You gotta nail it shut"
ETA I ripped it off the internet and it looked great on my 59in.
"Why don't you prove it cabrone"
"Shut the door! You gotta nail it shut"
ETA I ripped it off the internet and it looked great on my 59in.
Last edited by a moderator:
See it in glorious Ultra Panavision 70! lol.
The leaked copy of the movie was a DVD screener digital copy of the film. I don't think the rolling of 1990s film in the theater compared to a high definition digital copy of it is going to skew very many peoples opinion.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I want to re-post this again and I want to preface that I understand why people steal. I was unaware we had so many movie thieves. But even beyond that I want to say that no TV can recreate the experience you get in certain films at the theaters. I can kind of understand wanting to steal a movie that has marginal reviews and marginal actors and folks involved but I see there is no respect level for even the better film makers.
I know what I saw on screen in 70MM format cannot be recreated on a TV from a torrent. I'm sure it looked alright but even the folks going on NYE to see it in 2D digital I don't think will find the experience quite the same. QT was trying to put a Western together to pay homage to the classics. I thought the special 1-2 week engagement in 70 MM was for the true fan base or film lovers. I'm not trying to distance myself here as a fan but I do want folks to understand there is a major difference.
I might even try to catch it one more time in all its glory. I really had a good time.
I know what I saw on screen in 70MM format cannot be recreated on a TV from a torrent. I'm sure it looked alright but even the folks going on NYE to see it in 2D digital I don't think will find the experience quite the same. QT was trying to put a Western together to pay homage to the classics. I thought the special 1-2 week engagement in 70 MM was for the true fan base or film lovers. I'm not trying to distance myself here as a fan but I do want folks to understand there is a major difference.
I might even try to catch it one more time in all its glory. I really had a good time.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
No offense, I really don't know you but I feel sorry for you. Not like when posters get into political debates but just writing what you did and saying you feel the DVD copy spreading on the internet is as good as the 70 MM I saw this weekend on a massive screen.
First of all, a little background. I work with Paul Lazarus thru the Univ of Miami where I studied several film classes with him, we hit it off. He produced several movies in the 70s, you can look him up on IMDB. He is an active voting member of the Academy, he receives every "For Your Consideration" and I know the process of how this is done.
It's truly awful that you think there is glory in a DVD rip off online. When we receive all these, we typically still go to the theaters to view them because we know we won't get the whole picture in just a DVD. But even with copies in hand I still feel an obligation to go support the films, you don't.
Not much else I can say.
1- It's not stealing it's copyright infringement.
2- The "torrent" we are talking about equals a DVD in every way so when you keep focusing your attention on "stealing it" it distracts from what you really mean.
3- I'm a music lover and love to collect vinyl for my record player and even think that sometimes that's the best way to listen to certain records. But, I'm not delusional enough to think that anyone who hasn't listened to Houses of the Holy on vinyl somehow has a skewed opinion of that album.
I did't say anything about glory in a DVD rip off online. Nor did I say anything about supporting the film makers. I never even said where or how many times I saw the film. You are the one focused on the "stealing" part and it's made you jump to some conclusions about me apparently.
I simply said that going to a theater vs. watching a DVD isn't enough to skew someone's option of the film in most cases.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
-If you don't pay to watch a film that is out in current release, to me its stealing and to a lot of people including the film industry. It's not an MOP rule here, kind of societal or at least I thought.
-Copies of all films, even some not quite released get mailed out in Sept and Oct much of the time, there are written and unwritten laws but most in Hollywood abide with not leaking these. Thousands are sent out for each movie ahead of time especially during awards season.
-I collect vinyl or used to as well. I'm a Technics 1200/Numark mixer man myself. I understand the vinyl world ye speak of very well.
I'm encouraging folks to see the film the way the director felt it should look. If you can't appreciate that I can't value your POV much. And furthermore I revealed quite a lot about why I feel the way I do even including an active Academy voter, my opinion is grounded deeply, it's not just some random surge of emotion like you seem to think.
Big fan of old house/tech/breaks records.
There are actual laws that define what is theft (stealing) and what is copyright infringement.
Apparently the FBI is investigating one of your own for leaking this particular DVD, and maybe as many as 40.
Quez
Footballguy
I watched it in 2 nights with my wife. 3hrs is a bit long to to watch in one sitting.
If anyone plans on doing this I recommend stopping right when they get to Minnie's Haberdashery. It got late, (had no idea it was 3hrs when we started) so we stopped there. It turned out to be a perfect spot before getting into the heavy dialogue & introduced to new characters.
This is definitely one you do not want the kids walking out to see.
If anyone plans on doing this I recommend stopping right when they get to Minnie's Haberdashery. It got late, (had no idea it was 3hrs when we started) so we stopped there. It turned out to be a perfect spot before getting into the heavy dialogue & introduced to new characters.
This is definitely one you do not want the kids walking out to see.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I also feel the movie is not for kids but mainly I think they would be bored.
We do get a full frontal on a guy in a dream sequence, guess I wouldn't want my 7th graders watching this. The violence in the last 1/3 of the film though is overblown by critics. Again I found it cartoonish to horror genre.
The intermission in the theater is timed just right, wish I could remember the exact spot they inserted it.
Did anyone see The Proposition a few years back, Australian Western? It had violence on the scale at times of this film. In fact they have a rather unsettling head gets blown off moment in that film, wouldn't be above QT to have seen that and used it here. The Proposition was a tough film to watch but hard to look away from.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jaysus
Good times!
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
So a movie that takes place all in one room MUST be viewed in on the big screen? Is there some big chase scene around a kitchen table or something?
Statorama
Footballguy
I'm a QT fan. Don't get out to the theater as much as I used to, but I saw roughly 20 movies "at the show" this year. As you'll see by the list below, I generally go to the the theater to get my hair blown back like the guy in the Maxell commercial. I prefer watching movies that are dialogue driven at home, but for stuff like The Martian I'll catch it a couple of weeks into it's run on the big screen.
Movies I saw in the theater this year (in no particular order) that I felt were much better than H8:
Sicario
Ant-man
The Martian
Mission Impossible Rogue Nation
Spectre
Straight Outta Compton
Mad Max
Trainwreck
Kingsman: The Secret Service
Ex Machina
Movies that were better "event" movies:
Avengers Age of Ultron
Hunger Games Part 2
Terminator Genisys (I know...I know...but I had a good time)
Hateful 8 was better than these movies I saw in the theater:
San Andreas
Jurassic World
Divergent: Insurgent
Tomorrowland
Maze Runner : Scorch
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Chapter 4 starts with narration "About 15 minutes has passed since we last left our characters"...
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
The first 30-45 minutes is a stagecoach ride and some majestic scenery. Snow looked real and probably is, stagecoach authenticity, the costumes and the fur coats these guys are all sporting in the snow. The color contrast and vividness of the shots in low lighting. You can see SLJ in very black/dark surroundings. There is plenty to see if you like the art of film.